Sharon J. Pomeranz, Esquire
For the Respondent
Christopher M. Feldenzer, Esquire
For the General Counsel
Before: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
Administrative Law Judge

DECISION

Statement of the Case

This proceeding, under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code,
5 U.S.C. § 7101, etseq.(1), and the Rules
and Regulations issued thereunder, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.1, etseq., concerns whether
Respondent implemented Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments
(Buyouts) without bargaining as required by the Statute. Respondent
contends: (a) there was no obligation to bargain before extending
the buyout opportunity because the law under which the buyouts were
offered dictated to whom it could be offered and its terms; (b) the
issuance of the November 4, 1996, offer did not change any working
condition; and (c) notwithstanding that it had no duty to bargain
over the buyout offer, Respondent bargained in good faith.

A Consolidated Complaint issued in Case Nos. WA-CA-70087, in
which the Charging Party was American Federation of Government
Employees, Council 236, AFL-CIO, and WA-CA-70126. Prior to hearing,
Case No. WA-CA-70087 settled. Although the hearing concerned only
WA-CA-70126, some exhibits may, e.g. the
Complaint (G.C. Exh. 1(b)), refer to WA-CA-70087 and/or AFGE,
Council 236, and there are references in the testimony to AFGE
(i.e. Tr. 37), all such references to AFGE
and/or Council 236 have been excluded from consideration
herein.

This case was initiated by a charge filed on December 9, 1996,
which alleged violations of §§ 16(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8) of the
Statute (G.C. Exh. 1(a)). The Consolidated Complaint issued June
30, 1997 (G.C. Exh. 1(b)); alleged violation of §§ 16(a)(1) and (5)
only; and set the hearing for September 22, 1997, pursuant to which
a hearing was duly held on September 22, 1997, in Washington, D.C.,
before the undersigned. At the conclusion of the hearing, October
22, 1997, was fixed as the date for the mailing post-hearing briefs
and each party timely mailed an excellent brief, received on, or
before, October 27, 1997, which have been carefully considered.
Upon the basis of the entire record, I make the following findings
and conclusions:

FINDINGS

1. The National Federation of Federal Employees, (hereinafter,
"NFFE") is the exclusive representative of a nationwide
consolidated unit of certain employees of General Services
Administration (hereinafter, "Respondent") and the Council of GSA
Locals (hereinafter, "Union") is the agent of NFFE for purposes of
representing unit employees.

2. On Thursday, October 31, 1996, Respondent delivered to Mr.
William English, President of the Union, a letter which informed
him that Public Law 104-208, enacted September 30, 1996, authorized
the granting of Voluntary Separation Incentives (buyouts) and,
"Enclosed . . . a draft memorandum for employees concerning a
limited opportunity for interested employees to apply for a
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (buyout). A separation
incentive payment of up to $25,000 will be offered. . . ." (G.C.
Exh. 3; Tr. 15, 37, 39). As stated, a draft memorandum, from Acting
Administrator David J. Barram, to be sent to all employees was
attached.

The draft memorandum stated that employees must be a minimum of
50 years of age with 20 years of service or have 25 years of
service regardless of age to qualify for early retirement; and that
employees who elect early retirement may be subject to a reduction
in their annuity.

The draft memorandum emphasized that employees who wanted to be considered for a buyout
mustsubmita signed Declaration of Intenton, or before, November 15, 1996 (a sample "Declaration" was
attached); and the employee mustbe separated from service,
voluntarily, not later than January 3,
1997. The draft memorandum also set out the eligibility
requirements, all of which were required by P.L. 104-208 except No.
2, "2. Occupy a position included on Attachment 1 of this notice.
Only under extraordinary circumstances will I authorize an
exception to this list." (G.C. Exh. 3, Attachment).

The draft memorandum explained the process involved. First, the
employees must submit their requests to be considered for a buyout
(Declaration of Intent) not later than November 15, 1996. Second,
Respondent must decide whether it can dispense with the services of
each applicant. Third, Respondent, on the basis of approved
buyouts, must prepare and submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and to Congress, a strategic plan on the positions
and functions affected by the buyouts. Fourth, each employee will
be notified on, or before, December 20, 1996, if his, or her,
request has been approved. Disapproved buyouts requests are not
subject to appeal. Fifth, at the time of notification by Respondent
of approval of a request, the employee must sign a Voluntary
Separation agreement with an effective date no later than January
3, 1997. Sixth, employees were warned that if a buyout was
accepted, if he, or she is employed by the Federal Government, or
works for the Federal Government under a personal services
contract, within 5 years after the date of separation, he, or she,
will be required to repay, before the first day of employment, the
entire amount of the bonus.

Finally, Attachment 1 listed the organizations excluded from
the buyout offer; listed each included service and exclusions, if
any, in each. It also was noted that, "Although all Staff Office
employees nationwide may file . . . it is highly unlikely that
employees in Regions 1, 5, 6, or 10 (except for Heartland Region
Finance Division employees) will be approved for buyouts because
those organizations are already at or below their staffing goals.
(G.C. Exh. 3, Attachment 1).

3. P.L. 104-208, 110 STAT. 3009-383, etseq., as noted above, was enacted September
30, 1996, was effective October 1, 1996, and authorized buyouts
during the period October 1, 1996, through December 31, 1997.
Section 663(c) of the Act provided, in part, as follows:

5. On Monday, November 4, 1996, without notice to, or
consultation with, the Union, Respondent's Acting Administrator,
Mr. Barram, issued a memorandum to all employee re: Voluntary
Separation Incentive (G.C. Exh. 4). The issued memorandum was
substantially like the draft memorandum (G.C. Exh. 3, Attachment),
except that the following new paragraph was added:

"Guidelines for implementing the September 30, 1996, law were
issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on October 24.
In order to take advantage of this authority in the first quarter
of Fiscal Year 1997, GSA must proceed with its plan immediately.
GSA's proposed plan was provided to the national unions on
Thursday, October 31, 1996, and we have not yet reached an
agreement on implementation of the proposed plan with respect to
bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, implementation of this
buyout opportunity for bargaining unit employees is contingent upon
completion of labor relations obligations." (G.C. Exh. 4)

6. Mr. Edward P. Denney, Respondent's Director of its Labor
Relations Division (Tr. 29), testified credibly, and wholly without
contradiction, concerning the reason that buyouts, if they were to
be offered in fiscal year 1997, had to be completed by the end of
the first quarter of F.Y. 1997, as follows:

". . . the legislation was effective October 1st. We got the
guidance from OMB October 24, and in order to take advantage of the
buyouts, the financial people have proclaimed generally that you
have to accomplish it, get the employees who are going to take
advantage of the buyout. (sic) [,] Off the rolls, by the end of the
first quarter of the fiscal year in order to make this financially
viable, I think that allows the Agency to save a salary that the
employee would make the remainder of the fiscal year, and that
savings of salary enables the Agency to pay actual, the buyout
amount, $25,000.

"So that's why it was imperative, if we were going to take
advantage of this buyout at all, that we do it before December 31st
of the year, and we were already toward the end of October, early
November, so we had to move fast if we were going to do it at all.
Otherwise, the window would close; we couldn't take advantage of
it, and that would be it. It would be a lost opportunity." (Tr.
39-40).

7. With regard to the exceedingly tight time frame, Mr.
Denney further testified, in part, as follows:

". . . between the time the Agency offered the buyout until the
employees had to leave the rolls, there were a lot of requirements
that we had to meet, and they were imposed by the legislation and
by OMB.

"First thing you do is go to the employee and find out what
their interest is, how many employees would be at least interested
in taking advantage of the buyout, and that was what we called
getting the declarations of intent from employees.

"After that, we get those declarations of intent, we had to
prepare, I think they call it a strategic plan, which is again a
new requirement of this new legislation.

"We prepared a strategic plan, which had to be, again, based
upon the declarations of intent from the employees, that had to be
submitted to OMB and to Congress, specifically I think, to the
committees that have oversight responsibility over GSA.

"For review and approval, we had to hear back from them, or at
least allow a sufficient amount of time without any adverse
reactions from them before we could actually begin to implement the
buyout, that is, having employees go off the rolls. . . ." (Tr.
40-41)

Before it could prepare its strategic plan, Respondent first had
to determine whether each employee expressing interest in taking a
buyout could be spared. Thus, Mr. Denney explained,

". . . management authority had to be exercised with respect to
each and every one of these. In other words, each and every one is
subject to management approval.

"We couldn't let, for example, a particular employee go if that
person had absolutely unique skills that the Agency had to rely
upon, or other situations where we just couldn't approve certain
buyouts.

"We tried to approve as many as possible, but again, each one
had to be reviewed, and a determination had to be made as to
whether or not that individual employee could be permitted to take
a buyout." (Tr. 45)

9. Mr. Denney said he was sure that he had discussions with
Mr. English but, ". . . I don't recollect specific conversations,
or specific dates of conversations . . . I recollect from my
conversations with Bill that he was concerned about the general
trend of downsizing GSA . . . ." (Tr. 48).

On November 8, 1996, Mr. Denney responded to Mr. English's
undated letter, which he received on November 7, 1996, as
follows:

"This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1996, concerning
the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (Buyout).

"In an effort to respond to Items 1, 2 and 3 of your information
request, enclosed is a listing of unit employees who are scheduled
to leave the agency in connection with the present buyout (i.e.,
the buyout in which employees have previously signed separation
agreements and are scheduled to leave the rolls no later than March
31, 1997).

"In Items 3 and 4 of your information request you are seeking
information concerning action taken on management requests for
approval to fill vacant positions. Because such requests may have
been acted on at various levels of management and at various
locations, this information does not appear to be reasonably
available.

"In response to Item 5 of your information request, in which you
request the specific reasons that employees must voluntarily
separate from the agency no later than January 3, 1997, the
following information is provided. The buyouts will be an
unbudgeted expense for the agency. That is, no additional funds
were approved by Congress for the cost of the buyouts. Therefore,
the buyouts must be self-financing, i.e., paid for by salary
savings from departing personnel. Costs funded by the salary lapse
include the voluntary separation incentive payments, 15% of annual
salary as required by the legislation, and payment of terminal
annual leave balances. Calculations based on the anti-cipated
average annual salary range of departing personnel require
departure by January 3 in order to fund requirements from within
existing funds. This also applies to revolving funds, whose
customers have already budgeted annual reimbursements, based on
rates developed from annual operating plans. It should also be
noted that employee considerations were taken into account in
setting the buyout date, in that January 3 allows deferral of
income into the 1977 tax year.

"In your proposals, you request that we provide a "strategic Long
Term Plan (thru 1998)." In response, we are enclosing three reports
which provide FTE numbers by program area and region. These reports
were provided by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Some of
the information is considered to be quite sensitive, and is being
provided to you in a spirit of labor-management partnership.
Specifically, the FY 1998 figures are as reflected in the OMB
Budget and may not under any circumstances be released outside the
agency.

"We are offering this buyout opportunity to employees within
extremely tight timeframes over which we have virtually no control.
Immediately after November 15, the Declarations of Intent must be
reviewed carefully, and management determinations must be made as
to whether they may be accepted. Immediately thereafter the agency
must prepare and submit a strategic plan to OMB and Congress on the
positions and functions affected by the buyout and how the agency
will operate without affected employees. We are required to allow
10 working days for the review of the strategic plan. After that,
we must have sufficient time to notify employees as to whether
their Declarations have been accepted and have employees sign
separation agreements.

. . .

"Please call me . . . so that we may continue our discussions of
this matter. It is our sincere hope that we can resolve any
differences that may exist and permit bargaining unit employees to
take advantage of this buyout opportunity." (G.C. Exh. 10; Tr. 20,
48, 51).

10. On November 14, 1996, Mr. Denney responded further to
Mr. English as follows:

"This is in further response to your letter of November 7, 1996,
concerning the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (Buyout).

"We do not agree to your groundrules proposals. Specifically
with regard to your proposal that negotiations take place in
Washington, DC, we believe that we can resolve any differences on
this matter through a continued dialog using telephone and
facsimile. We also do not agree to your substantive proposals that
were included with your letter of November 7.

"It is still our hope that we can resolve our differences on
this matter in order that bargaining unit employees can take
advantage of this buyout opportunity." (G.C. Exh. 6; Tr. 21; Tr.
51, 52; 53).

11. On November 15, 1996, the Acting Administrator, Mr. Barram,
notified all employees that the period for filing a "Declaration of
Intent" was extended to the close of business on November 20, 1996
[from November 15](G.C. Exh. 8). Mr. Denney, also on November 15,
1996, advised Mr. English that the time to file Declarations of
Intent had been extended to November 20, 1996, and enclosed a copy
of Mr. Barram's November 15, 1996, memorandum to all employees
(G.C. Exh. 7).

12. Mr. English never responded to Mr. Denney's November 14,
1996, letter (Tr. 53); nor does the record show that he made any
response to Mr. Denney's November 8, 1996, letter.

Unfunded buyouts(3) which, like
those authorized by P.L. 104-208, "(B) shall be paid from
appropriations or funds available for the payment of the basic pay
of the employees;" (P.L. 104-208, Sec. 663(c)(2)(B), 110 STAT.
3009-384), may impose time constraints which mandate expedited
negotiations rather than the slow, ponderous and, at times even
lackadaisical, approach to negotiations which too often
characterize negotiations in the federal sector where a sense of
urgency seldom is found. Nevertheless, the agency's duty under the
Statute, to give the Union notice and opportunity to negotiate and
to bargain in good faith, is not changed one iota.

1. A Duty to Bargain Existed

Respondent asserts that, ". . . no duty to bargain existed . .
. the buyout memorandum did not affect the working conditions of
bargaining unit employees . . . the specific terms and conditions
of the agency's buyout program were not negotiable. . . the buyout
authority was structured in such a way that it gave Respondent
virtually no leverage in the terms of its program . . . the terms
of the buyout authority dictated the timeframes of the agency's
buyout program. . . ." (Respondent's Brief, pp. 1-2). I do not
agree.

Two basic factors govern: "(1) Whether the matter . . . pertains
to bargaining unit employees; and (2) The
nature and extent of the effect of the matter . . . on working conditions of those employees." Antilles Consolidated Education Association and Antilles
Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA 235, 236-237 (1986)
(emphasis in original), (hereinafter, "Antilles"). The Authority in Antilles further explained,

"As to the second factor . . . the question is whether . . . there
is a direct connection between the proposal and the work situation
or employment relationship of bargaining unit employees. . . ." (22
FLRA at 237).

When a Union seeks a benefit it does not have, there may be no
direct connection to the work situation or employment relationship,
e.g., hunting and fishing privileges,
International Association of Fire Fighters,
AFL-CIO, CLC, Local, F-116 and Department of the Air Force,
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 7 FLRA 123 (1981);
exchange privileges, Antilles, supra, whereas a direct connection to the employment
relationship exists as to the same, or similar benefit, which the
employees have and which management seeks to change or terminate,
e.g., revision of ration control policy,
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4
FLRA 139 (1980); termination of exchange privileges, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Buchanan,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 24 FLRA 971 (1986) (I had found that
Exchange privileges were, under the circumstances, a condition of
employment, id. at 987, etseq. The Authority
reversed), rev'd, subnom., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2761,
AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 866 F.2d 1443 (D.C. Cir. 1989), adopted, 37
FLRA 919 (1990); American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1786 and U.S. Department of the Navy, Marine Corps
Combat Development Command, Marine Corps Base, Quantico,
Virginia, 49 FLRA 534 (1994).

Here, buyouts are to be offered to bargaining unit employees as
inducements for their retirement. Obviously pertaining to
bargaining unit employees, plainly there is a direct connection
with the employment relationship, namely, inducement to terminate
that employment relationship. It was an authorization by Congress
and an option bargaining unit employees did not have absent
Respondent's offer. Respondent, while asserting that buyouts would,
". . . not necessarily [be] a change, so to speak,
in their working conditions" (Tr. 44), with alacrity
conceded, that, ". . . we knew it would be of importance to the
Union, of importance to the employees, . . . So we knew it would be
of importance to employees . . . ." (Tr. 43). The direct
relationship of buyouts to the employment relationship is shown by
the Congressional authorization itself which requires the agency to
submit a plan showing the positions and functions to be reduced or
eliminated and a description of how the agency will operate without
the eliminated positions and functions. (P.L. 104-208, Sec.
663(b)(2), 110 STAT. 3009-384).

Accordingly, buyouts had a significant effect on working
conditions and, therefore, imposed a duty to bargain. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, St. Louis,
Missouri, 50 FLRA 378 (1995) (award program); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Customs Service, Washington,
D.C. and Customs Service, Northeast Region, Boston,
Massachusetts, 38 FLRA 770, 792 (1990) (employees
volunteered for cross-assignments; nevertheless cross-assignment
was unilateral change of conditions of employment); Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base,
Illinois, 35 FLRA 844, 854 (1990) (issuance of specific RIF
notices constituted change in conditions of employment even though
the date of implementation was well in the future).

(b) Respondent had
discretion

It long has been firmly established that,

". . . To the extent an agency has discretion with respect to a
given matter . . . the agency must upon request negotiate with an
exclusive representative over that matter. [footnote omitted] . .
." National Treasury Employees Union and
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, 3
FLRA 769 (1980); (Bureau of the Public
Debt), aff'd, 691 F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

". . . the duty of an agency under the Statute is to negotiate with
an exclusive representative . . . concerning conditions of
employment affecting them, except as provided otherwise by Federal
law and regulation, including Government-wide regulation . . . to
the extent of their discretion . . . ." Harry
Diamond Laboratories and Department of the Army and Department of
Defense, 15 FLRA 216, 217 (1984)(4).

Respondent certainly is correct that the terms of buyouts are
fixed by statute and that Respondent had little "leverage"; but
Respondent was not without discretion and, whether its discretion
was great or small, Respondent was obligated to bargain to the
extent of its discretion. As Respondent conceded in its draft
memorandum (G.C. Exh. 3, Attachment), which it submitted to the
Union on October 31, 1996, the legislation authorizing buyouts
extended through December, 1997, i.e.,
through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1998, and, therefore, it
had discretion as to when a buyout would be offered.(5) As further examples of its discretion:
the date for soliciting employees interest; the date for employees
to respond (Declaration of Intent), which Respondent first fixed as
November 15, 1996, and later changed to November 20, 1996; the date
for issuance of the notice (Draft memorandum G.C. Exh. 3,
Attachment) to employees, etc. Because
there were areas of discretion, Respondent was obligated to
bargain, to the extent required by the Statute, to the extent of
its discretion.

(c) Respondent bargained in bad
faith

On October 31, 1996, Respondent delivered to the Washington,
D.C. office of Mr. English, President of the Union, a letter
which,

The attached draft (G.C. Exh. 3, Attachment) was undated and
nothing, either in Mr. Denny's covering letter or in the draft
memorandum, indicated when Respondent intended to issue the "draft"
memorandum. Certainly, Mr. Denny's concluding sentence, "If you
have any questions . . . ." (G.C. Exh. 3), stated an intent to
permit the Union to respond.

(i) Unilateral issuance of
memorandum to All Employees

on Monday, November 4,
1996.

Mr. English was in Denver, Colorado, on October 31, 1996, and
was uncertain that he received Mr. Denney's letter and attached
draft on October 31 (Tr. 16). Without notice and without affording
the Union a reasonable opportunity to respond, Respondent on
Monday, November 4, the second working day after its October 31,
1996, letter submitting a draft, unilaterally disseminated to all
employees its memorandum (G.C. Exh. 4).

Because Respondent was faced with very short time constrains
if, as it desired, buyouts were to be offered in fiscal year 1997,
i.e., by December 31, 1996, Respondent
could have insisted upon expedited bargaining procedures, rather
than the procedures set forth in Article 9, Section 3 of the
parties' national Agreement(6). If
Respondent had made clear that buyouts must be self-financing
(which it did not do until November 8 (G.C. Exh. 10); if Respondent
had fixed a date for reply, even November 4, 1996; and if
Respondent had said that, because of the short time remaining, it
intended to release the Memorandum to all employees, with a
statement, like the last paragraph on page 1 of the memorandum
which it issued (G.C. Exh. 4), which advised, in essence, that in
order to make buyouts available in fiscal year 1997, it must
proceed immediately, that it had submitted its proposed plan to the
Union but agreement on implementation had not been reached and,
accordingly, implementation of this buyout is contingent upon
completion of negotiation, I, certainly, would have found no
violation by Respondent. But Respondent did none of these things.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent failed to bargain in good
faith, failed to give any notice of its intention to issue the
memorandum to all employees, unilaterally modified in a significant
manner its draft memorandum and unilaterally issued the revised
memorandum (G.C. Exh. 4) in violation of §§ 16(a)(5) and (1) of the
Statute.

(ii) Unilateral change of
plan on November 15, 1996

Mr. English on November 6, 1996, from Denver, Colorado,
transmitted by facsimile mail to his office a letter to Mr. Denney
which was hand delivered to Mr. Denney on November 7, 1996 (Tr.
19): (1) demanding to negotiate, ". . . over the new proposed
voluntary separation incentive program . . . ." (G.C. Exh. 5) and,
together therewith, (2) a proposed groundrule agreement; (3) a
request for information; and (4) Union proposals (G.C. Exh. 5).

Notwithstanding the demand to bargain, Respondent on November
15, 1996, without notice and without any opportunity to negotiate,
issued a letter to all employees that the time for filing a
"Declaration of Intent", i.e., intention to
accept a buyout, had been extended to November 20, 1996. The Union
was notified only after the fact (G.C. Exh. 7). By its unilateral
issuance of a notice to all employees changing a critical but
discretionary part of its proposed plan, about which the Union had
demanded to bargain, Respondent violated §§ 16(a)(5) and (1) of the
Statute.

(iii) Respondent's
refusal to bargain

As noted above, the Union submitted its demand to bargain on
November 6, 1996 (not actually received by Mr. Denney until
November 7, 1996). As also noted above, the Union demanded
negotiations over the proposed buyout program and one of its
proposals, in part, was:

"6. . . . bargaining unit employees will have two weeks after an
agreement is reached with NFFE, to submit a signed 'Declaration of
Intent' . . . to their servicing Personnel Office. . . . At that
time, employees will be asked to sign a voluntary separation
agreement with an effective date no earlier than the date the
'Declaration of Intent' and no later than (to be
determined)." (G.C. Exh. 5, Attachment).

In its request for information, the Union sought, interalia, "5. The specific
reason(s) that employees must voluntarily separate from the Agency
no later than January 3, 1997." (G.C. Exh. 5, Attachment). Further,
the Union stated that it needed the requested information,
interalia, "c. To
develop impact and implementation proposals as appropriate."
(id.).

". . . We do not agree to your groundrules proposals.
Specifically with regard to your proposal that negotiations take
place in Washington, DC, we believe that we can resolve any
differences on this matter through a continued dialog using
telephone and facsimile(7). We also
do not agree to your substantive proposals that were included with
your letter of November 7.

. . . ." (G.C. Exh. 6)

By its, "We also do not agree to your substantive proposals . . .
." (G.C. Exh. 6), Respondent refused to bargain about the buyout
proposal. As Mr. Denney testified,

"A We really didn't think we had a bargaining obligation . . .
We thought this was something that the Agency could do
unilaterally, and not just because it was a benefit to the
employees but because it was something that, it's part of the
management of the Agency, we feel, certainly part of the
legislative authority that we were given.

"But for lack of a better term, as a courtesy to the Unions,
we wanted to let them know what we were doing rather than just
hearing about this initiative. In the final analysis, we didn't
think we had the obligation to bargain the buyout with the Unions."
(Tr. 72-73).

For reasons set forth above, Respondent was obligated to
bargain and its refusal to entertain the Union's demand to bargain
on the program violated §§ 16(a)(5) and (1) of the Statute.

Having found that Respondent violated §§ 16(a)(5) and (1) of
the Statute, it is recommended hat the Authority adopt the
following:

(a) Unilaterally communicating with bargaining unit
employees concerning implementation of proposed changes in
conditions of employment subject to negotiation under the
Statute.

(b) Unilaterally changing conditions of employment of
bargaining unit employees by offering Voluntary Separation
Incentive Payments (Buyouts) without affording the National
Federation of Federal Employees, Council of GSA Locals
(hereinafter, "NFFE"), the exclusive representative of certain of
its employees, a reasonable opportunity to negotiate over the
change.

(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights assured by the Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate
the purposes and policies of the Statute:

(a) Notify NFFE of any intended Buyout opportunities and,
upon request, negotiate in good faith over the change.

(b) Advise NFFE concerning notification of bargaining
unit employees of proposed implementation of negotiable changes in
conditions of employment and negotiate with NFFE to the extent
required by the Statute before notifying bargaining unit
employees.

(c) Post nationwide, wherever employees represented by
NFFE are located, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of
such forms, they shall be signed by the Administrator, and shall be
posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.

(d) Pursuant to § 2423.41(e) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.41(e), notify the Regional Director of
the Washington Region, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1255 22nd
Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20037-1206, in writing,
within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.

_______________________________

WILLIAM B. DEVANEY

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: April 9, 1998

Washington, DC

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

The Federal Labor Relations Authority has found that the General
Services Administration violated the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute and has ordered us to post and
abide by this Notice.

We hereby notify our employees that:

WE WILL notify the National Federation of Federal Employees,
Council of GSA Locals (hereinafter, "NFFE"), the exclusive
representative of certain of our employees, of any proposed
notification of bargaining unit employees of implementation of
negotiable changes in conditions of employment and negotiate with
NFFE to the extent required by the Statute before notifying the
bargaining unit employees.

WE WILL notify NFFE of any intended offer of Voluntary Separation
Incentive Payments (Buyouts) and, upon request, we will negotiate
to the extent required by law over the proposed change.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.

_________________________

(Agency)

Date:_____________________ By: ______________________

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any
other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with any of its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Regional Director, Washington Region, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, 1255 22nd Street, N.W., Suite 400,
Washington, D.C. 20037-1206, and whose telephone number is: (202)
653-8500.

1. For convenience of reference,
sections of the Statute hereinafter are, also, referred to without
inclusion of the initial "71" of the statutory reference,
i.e., Section 7116(a)(5) will be referred
to, simply, as, "§ 16(a)(5)".

"4. Depending on the circumstance, bargaining unit employees who
have received proposed notice of involuntary separation for
non-felony misconduct or unacceptable performance, will be allowed
to accept the buyout . . . ."

Such proposal was contrary to law. Section 663(2)(C)
specifically excluded:

"(C) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of
involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable performance."
(P.L. 104-208, 110 STAT. 3009-383, Sec. 633(2)(C)).

". . . an employee in receipt of a specific notice of
involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance;

. . . ."

3. Buyouts frequently are
misunderstood. A buyout may not exceed $25,000; but not everyone
will receive that amount. To the contrary, the amount to be paid
(Sec. 663(c)(2)(C) of P.L. 104-208), is the least of: (a) the amount the employee would be entitled
if involuntarily separated from service, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
5595(c) [1 week's basic pay for each year of service up to and
including 10 years; 2 weeks' basic pay for service beyond 10 years;
age adjustment of 10% the total basic severance for each year by
which the age of the recipient exceeds 40 years at the time of
separation]; (b) one year's basic pay; or (c) $25,000.00.

4. The Authority's holding, ". . .
that questions concerning the existence of a compelling need for
regulations issued at the agency or primary national subdivision
level so

5. The Act, P.L. 104-208, and OMB
Bulletin No. 97-02 (Oct. 24, 1996) authorized buyouts for
separations by retirement or resignation after October 1, 1996, and
before December 31, 1997, but did not direct buyouts. The decision
as to whether it would offer buyouts, and to whom buyouts would be
offered, was Respondent's, under § 6(a)(1) of the Statute. The Act,
P.L. 104-208, Sec. 663(c)(2)(B), 110 STAT. 3009-384, mandates that
buyouts, "(B) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of the basic pay of the employees." Accepting
Respondent's assertion, and there was no evidence or testimony to
the contrary, that in order to pay for the cost of buyouts,
employees must be off the payroll, by the end of the first quarter
of the fiscal year; and further accepting, as I believe is the case
and as to which there is no denial, that the Union can not "veto"
Respondent offering buyouts; nevertheless, Respondent had
discretion as to whether buyouts would be offered in the first
quarter of FY 97 (i.e., through December
31, 1996) or in the first quarter of FY 98 (i.e., through December 31, 1997), and, because it had
this discretion, it was obligated to bargain to the extent of its
discretion.

6. This was implicit in the parking
cases, such as Harry Diamond Laboratories and
Department of the Army and Department of Defense, 15 FLRA
216 (1984); Boston District Recruiting Command,
Boston, Massachusetts, etal., 15 FLRA 720 (1984); Defense Logistics Agency (Cameron Station, Virginia)etal., 12 FLRA 412
(1983), where government-wide Directives and Regulations fixed the
date for the beginning (implementa-tion) of the program and there
was only a very short period from the issuance of the authorizing
Regulations and the pre-ordained date of implementation for
bargaining before implementation of the program.

7. Mr. Denney's response must be
viewed with a jaundiced eye in view of the fact that: (a) Mr.
English's office is in the same building as Mr. Denney's (Tr. 39);
(b) Mr. Denney said, "There's hardly a day that goes by that I
don't meet with or talk to Bill English." (Tr. 65); (c) Mr. Denney
couldn't, ". . . recollect specific conversations . . . ." (Tr.
48); (d) the only facsimile, other than Acting Director Barram's
unilateral memorandum to all employees on November 15, 1996 (G.C.
Exh. 8), shown on the record was Mr. English's November 6 letter
with attachments (G.C. Exh. 5).